Re: Proposed resolution to issue 421

Charles,
The issue of identifying focus and selection through the native user 
interface is covered in checkpoints 4.16 and 4.17.  Behavior of focus in 
checkpoint 4.18 and 4.19.  This checkpoint is primarily for insuring 
communication of focus and selection information to assistive technologies.

Jon


At 04:07 PM 12/28/2000 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Going back to the 21 January draft (for the sake of a convenient document)
>the checkpoint says that these mechanism, where they exist, should be
>implemented usign standard mechanisms, so that users can find them in a
>familiar manner. I think that is what they should say still, and i think it
>would eb easier to find them if they stay where they are.
>
>The standard things they need to do are to meet OS/system requirements for
>user interface (i.e. be readily identifiable by looking at them) as well as
>being programmatically exposed.
>
>more  or less...
>
>cheers
>
>Charles McCN
>
>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>
>   Some of the issues that were raise on the 21 December teleconference:
>
>   1. Checkpoint 8.6 implies that a user agent must implement selection and
>   focus to conform to the guidelines.  While these features are widely used
>   in most user agents, it was not the intention of the group to require a
>   user agent to implement selection and focus.  If a user agent does not
>   implement these for anyone, why do they need to be implemented for a person
>   with a disability?  In practice most user agents support at least focus,
>   and many support selection.  But some technologies like a multi-media
>   player may never implement selection, but could be very accessible.
>
>   2. The second sentence in 8.6 deals with implementing standard focus and
>   selection methods that are usable to assistive technologies.  This
>   requirement seems to be more a part of guideline 5.
>
>   Proposal:
>
>   1. Delete current checkpoint 8.6 based on the removal of the requirement to
>   implement selection and focus.
>   2. Add a new checkpoint to guideline 5 relating to implementing accessible
>   focus and selection methods at a priority 1 level.
>
>   [NEW]
>   5.x  Provide programmatic access to selection, content focus, and user
>   interface focus mechanisms using operating system APIs that support
>   accessibility [Priority 1].
>
>   Note: This checkpoint is an important special case of checkpoint 5.4.  Some
>   operating systems have specialized APIs that are designed for communicating
>   some types of information to assistive technologies and these should be
>   used when available, other operating systems will require using the
>   standard operating system APIs that support communication with assistive
>   technologies.
>   [/NEW]
>   Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>   Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>   Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>   MC-574
>   College of Applied Life Studies
>   University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>   1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>
>   Voice: (217) 244-5870
>   Fax: (217) 333-0248
>
>   E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>
>   WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>   WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>
>
>
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>until 6 January 2001 at:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 
>France

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 16:33:25 UTC